The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective
Author(s): Michael R. Solomon
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Dec., 1983), pp. 319-329
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488804
Accessed: 18-04-2017 17:16 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Consumer Research
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Role of Products as Social Stimuli:
A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective
MICHAEL R. SOLOMON*
Most empirical work on product symbolism has paid relatively little attention to
how products are used by consumers in everyday social life. This paper argues
that the subjective experience imparted by the consumption of many products
substantially contributes to the consumer's structuring of social reality, self-concept, and behavior. Moreover, the consumer often relies upon the social meanings
inherent in products as a guide to the performance of social roles, especially when
role demands are novel. While marketing theory traditionally views products as
post hoc responses to underlying needs, the focus here is on conditions under
which products serve as a priori stimuli to behavior. By integrating concepts
adapted from symbolic interactionism, this approach stresses the importance of
product symbolism as a mediator of self-definition and role performance.
T he notion that many products possess symbolic fea-
cisions, tends to deter researchers from consideration of
tures and that consumption of goods may depend more
what consumers do with products once they have bought
on their social meaning than their functional utility is a
them. Consumption does not occur in a vacuum; products
significant one for consumer research (Levy 1959, 1964,
are integral threads in the fabric of social life.
1980; Zaltman and Wallendorf 1979). Research streams
Although some early theorists distinguished between the
-involving self-image and product-image congruence (Bird-
processes of buying and consuming (Alderson 1957; Boyd
well 1968; Dolich 1969; Gardner and Levy 1955; Grubb
and Levy 1963), the proposition that consumer behavior
and Hupp 1968; Landon 1974), store image (Dornoff and
should not be equated with buyer behavior has only recently
Tatham 1972; Mason and Mayer 1970), the role of products
begun to receive attention in the literature. One emerging
in impression formation and communication (Belk 1978;
research stream, termed the "experiential view," empha-
Holman 1981a, 1981b; Rosenfeld and Plax 1977), and sym-
sizes that many consumption experiences lie beyond the
bolic consumption (Bagozzi 1975; Hirschman 1981;
realm of purchase decisions: "fantasies, feelings, and fun"
Hirschman and Holbrook 1981; Levy, Czepiel, and Rook
are also vital consumption phenomena (Holbrook and
1980) share the basic premise that the symbolic qualities
Hirschman 1982). Thus the "experiences" imparted by
of products are often determinants of product evaluation
products also deserve the attention of consumer researchers.
and adoption.
These authors, then, stress the view of mankind as homo
ludens, and consider the hedonic role of products for people
Although the field has long acknowledged the importance
at play.
of intangible attributes (e.g., Gardner and Levy 1955),
some barriers have impeded the development of theory to
The departure point for the present paper involves a dif-
assess relationships between product symbolism and con-
ferent (though by no means mutually exclusive) view of
sumer behavior. As some researchers have noted, research
mankind-namely, that of homo faber, man as the maker
on symbolic consumption phenomena is often flawed by
and user of objects. This perspective focuses on consumers'
the inconsistent nature of relevant concepts and by the de-
relationships with the objects they produce and purchase,
scriptive nature of results (cf. Hirschman 1981; Holman
and suggests that a significant portion of consumption behavior is actually social behavior-and vice versa. Much
1980).
One barrier concerns the basic emphasis in consumer
of the subjective experience imparted by the consumption
research on the dynamics of the purchase decision. The
of symbolic products can best be understood by placing this
dominant information-processing model (Bettman 1979),
process within the larger context of social reality. As
while valuable in explaining and predicting many such de-
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton recently observed
(1981, p. 1):
*Michael R. Solomon is Associate Director, Institute of Retail Management and Assistant Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business Ad-
Social scientists tend to look for the understanding of human
life in the internal psychic processes of the individual or in
the patterns of relationship between people; rarely do they
cnsidehr the rnle of material ohiects.
ministration, New York University, NY 10003. He would like to thank
Elizabeth Hirschman, Melanie Wallendorf, and the anonymous reviewers
for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
319
(? JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 0 Vol. 10 0 December 1983
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
320
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CONSUMER
RESEARCH
This paper proposes that additional theory is needed to ex-
psychologists and sociologists. 2 Chief among these were
plain how consumers use intangible product attributes in
the course of everyday life.
Cooley, John Dewey, Robert E. Park, and George Herbert
One asset of this perspective is that it focuses attention
on how products are actually used by individuals; with a
few exceptions (e.g., Levy 1981; Rook and Levy 1983;
Wallendorf 1979), research has not really considered how
products are incorporated into interpersonal relationships or
into the individual's social ecology (Hirschman 1980).
While the emerging "experiential view" provides a muchneeded focus on the hedonic consumption of such symbolic
products as entertainment and art (Hirschman and Holbrook
1982; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Levy and Czepiel
1975), the present emphasis is on the importance of products in "setting the stage" for the multitude of social roles
people must play (lover, gourmand, executive, athlete, and
so on). It is argued that consumers employ product symbolism to define social reality and to ensure that behaviors
appropriate to that reality will ensue. Thus it is proposed
that product symbolism is often consumed by the social
actor for the purpose of defining and clarifying behavior
patterns associated with social roles. The consumer often
relies upon the social information inherent in products to
shape self-image and to maximize the quality of role performance.
Relationships between material cues and social behavior
are approached by melding symbolic interactionism theory
from sociology with the empirical work of consumer researchers. 1 It is believed that such an approach will allow
assets of each perspective to compensate for deficits in the
other. Symbolic interactionism has evolved primarily at an
abstract level, with relatively little emphasis on empirical
validation of its propositions (cf. Merton 1957; Quarantelli
and Cooper 1966). In contrast, much work in product use
and communication has emphasized data collection at the
expense of theory. In regarding the symbolic meaning embodied in products as one type of social stimulus, the current paper fuses the domain studied by consumer researchers with that studied by psychologists and sociologists.
THE SELF AS SOCIAL OBJECT:
AN OVERVIEW OF SYMBOLIC
William James, James Mark Baldwin, Charles Horton
Mead. Similar approaches were developed independently
in Germany by George Simmel and by Max Weber, the
latter's version being known as "action theory." Some versions of symbolic interactionism are known as "role theory," while others simply refer to this work as the "Chicago tradition," reflecting the dominance of the University
of Chicago faculty in the theory's dissemination (e.g.,
Mead 1934).
Symbolic interactionism focuses on the process by which
individuals understand their world. It assumes that people
interpret the actions of others rather than simply reacting
to them. The elicited response is a function of the meaning
attached to such actions (Blumer 1962), which is, in turn,
mediated largely by symbols. Thus a person's relation to
physical (objective) reality is mediated by the symbolic environment. A symbol may be regarded as a stimulus with
a learned meaning and value; the person's response to the
stimulus is in terms of this meaning and is generally not
isomorphic with its effect upon the person's physical sense
organs (Rose 1962).3
Overall, symbolic interactionism asserts at least three
fundamental postulates (Kinch 1967):
1. A consumer's self-concept is based on perceptions of the
responses of others.
2. A consumer's self-concept functions to direct behavior.
3. A consumer's perception of the responses of others to
some degree reflects those responses.
The first two postulates have been empirically supported,
while the evidence for the third is mixed (Shrauger and
Schoeneman 1979).
The Social Self
Although there are some variations in perspective, the
consensus of modern symbolic interactionism centers on
the social nature of the self and its importance for the in-
dividual's interaction patterns (Blumer 1969, p. 12):4
INTERACTIONISM
The body of thought now known as symbolic interactionism originated in the early writings of American social
2For a more complete discussion of the development of interactionist
thought, see Laver and Handel (1979), Kinch (1967), McCall and Simmons (1978), Mead (1934), Sarbin and Allen (1968), and especially Rose
(1962).
3This definition is consistent with consumer researchers' understanding
of products that serve as symbols and hence are assigned meaning which
'The usefulness of this approach has been recognized by a small number
extends beyond their tangible presence (Bagozzi 1975, 1979; Hirschman
of marketing researchers, who have incorporated some components of the
theory in their work (cf. Holman 1980; Munson and Spivey 1980; Schenk
weight assigned to tangible and intangible attributes of "things;" there
and Holman 1980; Turner 1980). While this work has focused on relatively
are many instances in consumer behavior where tangible attributes are in
static components of the theory (e.g., situational self-image), the present
fact prepotent. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
1980; Kotler 1972). One possible discrepancy may be found in the relative
emphasis is on the dynamic process of the consumer-product symbol
4More recent theoretical perspectives in social psychology also emphainteraction; how the consumer uses the product to orient his/her behavior. size the self as a social construct. These include Bem's self-perception
For example, Holman ( 198 Ia) discusses research on the interactional pertheory (Bem 1967, 1972), Snyder's (1974) self-monitoring construct,
spective, which concerns the reactions the consumer anticipates from othBuss' (1980) work on public self-consciousness, Duval and Wicklund's
ers who might observe him/her using the product (Haire 1950; Woodside,
(1972) theory of objective self-awareness, and Wicklund and Gollwitzer's
Bearden, and Ronkainen 1977; Holbrook and Hughes 1978).
(1982) recent development of symbolic self-completion theory.
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRODUCTS
AS
SOCIAL
In all instances he
himself and guides himself in his actions toward others on
the basis of the kind of object he is to himself.
STIMULI
321
is
related
an
meanings
object
that directs theto
individual's
himself;
behavior in
William James. Architects of symbolic interactionism
have always emphasized the social nature of the self. William James (1890), for example, partitioned the self into
at least four constituents when he offered separate analyses
of the Material Self, the Social Self, the Spiritual Self, and
Pure Ego. James believed that each of us has as many selves
as we do social roles.
an
a social setting (Rose 1962). Since a person can play many
disparate roles as a function of the cues inherent in a given
setting (e.g., professor, father, pedestrian), behavior is
made up largely of role playing. It is proposed that role
behavior is facilitated or inhibited by the presence or absence of the material symbols (product cues) that have been
culturally associated with a particular role.
Taking the role of the other. Given the overlap of
shared meaning, individuals who learn a culture should be
able to predict the behavior of others in that culture. Perhaps
George HerbertMead. Mead's(1934)analysistookthe
more importantly, they should structure their own behavior
construct of self a step further. He proposed that the indiin accordance with others' predicted behavior. According
vidual defines (assigns meaning to) the self in the same way
to symbolic interactionism, this predictive process is acthat meaning is assigned to other objects or people. Accomplished by a property unique to humans-the capacity
cording to Mead, the individual's definition of the self as
of role-taking, or empathy. By "taking the role of the
a role player in a specific relationship is termed a "me."
other," the individual is able to estimate the effect of symThus we have a separate "me" for each of our roles. It
bol configurations upon the recipient of the communicaseems plausible to assume that all "me's" are not equally
tion.6 Besides taking the role of a specific other, one can
articulated, learned, or complex, and that some are more
take the role of a "generalized other" by imagining the
salient than others for self-definition.5 The individual's set
responses to one's behavior of some social aggregate, such
of "me's" combines to form a total self-conception, which
as an aspirational reference group or one's family. The
Mead termed "I."
outcome of this projective process substantially contributes
to the consumer's self-evaluation.
Charles Horton Cooley. Another concept central to the
current analysis is the metaphor of "the looking glass self."
Seeing yourself as others see you. The major emphasis
For Cooley, the self is the result of the individual's imagof symbolic interaction theory is thus on the social nature
inative processes during interaction with others. The self
of self-definition. The self is defined largely through interis a reflected self composed of three elements-namely,
action-one's attitude toward oneself is basically deter"the imagination of our appearance to the other person, the mined by the same processes that impel one to assign meanimagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some
ing to other social objects. A corollary to this supposition
sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification" (Cooley
is that one's self-image is in part determined-via role1902, p. 152).
The Role-Playing Self
The consensus of meaning. Symbols acquire their
meaning through the socialization process that begins in
childhood. For this reason, individuals with a common history of enculturation should exhibit considerable overlap in
their interpretation of symbolic meanings. In other words,
the ascribed meanings of many symbols possess a high
degree of consensual validation. Cultural symbols are vital
to the interpretation of social reality; they allow the role
player to assign meaning to the world. The shared meaning
inherent in a common symbol system allows an individual
to assume that his or her interpretation of reality is reasonably consistent with the interpretations of others.
Cultural symbols, which are learned through interaction
and then come to mediate it, do not exist in isolation, but
are often related to other symbols; sets of symbols are
grouped together as guides to behavior. A role is a set of
5This extrapolation is made by the author, not by Mead. Mead did,
however, point out that some roles have more positive value associated
with them; the groups in which these central roles are played are reference
groups.
taking-by estimates of how others are evaluating oneself.
The degree to which one is committed to a social identity
determines the power of that identity to influence behavior.
Identities that are central to the self have a greater probability of being invoked as guides to appropriate behavior
(Stryker 1968). The integration of the estimated appraisals
of oneself by others is termed reflexive evaluation and is
central to the present analysis.
PRODUCTS AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Figure A summarizes the divergence between the trad
tional perspective of products as responses and the proposition that products can serve as stimuli or causes of behavior as well.
Products as Responses
Marketing theory is predicated on the central role of
products in the exchange process (Kotler 1976). However,
the differential ability of people to "take the role of the other" has
received some attention in the sales management literature, where research
has demonstrated that a salesperson's ability to estimate the customer's
needs and product perception is related to sales success (cf. Weitz 1978).
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TIFTHE iniOINAP OAF COnNSiUMFp RPFSFAPRCH
marketing theorists often seem to overlook the importance
of products to human behavior, in that they tend to view
products as responses to rather than as causes of behavior.
Issues tend to center more upon the processes that affect
the ultimate purchase decision and less upon the processes
by which the consumer actually uses what he or she has
bought. A product is viewed as the material satisfaction of
a need (McCarthy 1981). As such, it is really a manifes-
tation of an "inner" search process. The focus is on the
effect of economic, psychological, and sociological variables on product choice, rather than on the effects of products on the consumer's experience. A better understanding
of the latter would yield several benefits, ranging from the
theoretical to the pragmatic:
Products as Stimuli
The assertion that the products which an individual uses
can be a potent information source from which to draw
inferences about that individual has been well documented
(e.g., Belk 1978, 1980; Holman 1981a, 1981b; Rosenfeld
and Plax 1977). In particular, product cues provide information about an individual's occupation of social roles
(vocational, political, religious, and so on); these roles are
frequently signified by the unique and discriminable nexus
of products that accompanies them.7
The centrality of symbolism to the interpretation of social
reality and the nature of symbol systems, as shared by
members of a common culture, lead to a proposition that
extends the symbolic interaction process into the product
1. Transactions comprise a large portion of human activity,
and social scientists should incorporate such activities if
they wish to paint a complete picture of social life.
realm:
P1: Cultural symbols acquire meaning only when
placed in the context of contemporary culture.
2. A view of products as causes of behavior may be helpful
The material goods produced by a culture have
in studying the societal and interpersonal changes wrought
symbolic properties with meanings that are shared
by innovations in object usage (e.g., television, the au-
within that culture.
tomobile).
3. It may be possible to predict symbolic effects and to elicit
desirable behavioral outcomes through product/environment intervention (e.g., psychotherapies or management
strategies that endorse a restructuring of the environment
to induce behavioral changes).
4. Promotional strategies that emphasize the value of prod-
ucts in optimizing the performance of social roles could
be developed and refined (e.g., the "dress for success"
phenomenon).
Product-social behavior relationships receive even less
attention in the "basic" social sciences. With the possible
exception of anthropology, these fields emphasize abstract
constructs as determinants of behavior (e.g., attitude, class
If in fact the possession and display of such products as
clothing, cosmetics, jewelry, automobiles, and furniture are
taken to be indicators of the underlying characteristics of
others and are used to infer or predict their behavior, it
seems reasonable to consider the role of these same products for self-attribution. This possibility parallels the fundamental logic of self-perception theory (Bem 1972), which
holds that actors rely upon the same cues in making attributions for their own behavior as they do for explaining the
behavior of others.
The notion that products can serve as causes as well as
consequences of behavior can be restated as follows:
P2: Under some conditions, the learned cues inherent
structure). The material products of civilization and/or their
intangible attributes tend to be mentioned only in passing,
as measurable reflections of underlying variables. For ex-
7These products are consumed largely for the symbolism they contain.
Although symbolic interactionists and consumer researchers tend loosely
ample, despite widespread acknowledgement of the potency
to regard a symbol as something that stands for something else, linguists
of appearance for person perception (cf. Berscheid and
and semioticians are more specific in their definitions (cf. Peirce
Walster 1969), virtually all work has focused upon facial
or postural characteristics and has ignored the myriad products that are vital mediators of perceived attractiveness
(Solomon and Schopler 1982). The lack of attention to
products-save for their occasional convenient use as de-
pendent measures-is typical of much of mainstream psychology and sociology.
In short, most research involving products assumes that
they are employed by consumers in a strategic, deliberate
sense, either for the purpose of need satisfaction (as in
marketing), or for impression management (as in social
psychology). In both cases, consumption is a response to
a need or to a strategic goal. There is no doubt that products
1931-1935). In these literatures, a sign is any bit of information that has
a conscious referent; something with enough internal coherence to evoke
a consistent image. A symbol is but one kind of sign. Its relation to an
object is not based upon some physical or qualitative resemblance, but
rather on conventional understanding.
Csikazentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) note that, relative to
other signs (e.g., emotions or ideas), objects tend to evoke consistent
responses over time and hence are more permanent. Also, they observe
that products have an especially strong relation to human consciousness,
in that they are doubly dependent upon the investment of meaning-at
both the encoding/creation and decoding/consumption stages-for their
existence. Yet not all products are symbols; some possess personalized
sign properties that do not rely upon consensus for meaning (e.g., a "lucky
bottle cap" or the tune to a memory-laden song). The present discussion
is concerned primarily with those objects that are truly symbols. Although
this restriction does force the exclusion of some products, a substantial
is not the whole story. Products also can play an a priori
portion of products do have socially significant meanings. This is especially true when one considers that products are connected to social roles:
by definition, products that provide information regarding one's place in
the social system (status, wealth) rely upon consensus to communicate
role as stimuli that are antecedent to behavior.
this value.
play an important role in the satisfaction of needs and in
communication to others in an a posteriori sense, but this
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRODUCTS
AS
SOCIAL
STIMULI
323
FIGURE A
PROPOSED BI-DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTS AND CONSUMERS
Antecedent
Motivation
Result
Products as responses: self-image need arousal need satisfaction
product purchase
impression management
Products as stimuli: product symbolism > role definition self-attribution
situational self-image
role performance
in product symbolism drive behavior, either by
102). Clothing and other appearance-related products may
facilitating or by inhibiting role performance.
even be viewed as establishing a more potent link between
This proposition is a departure from the usual assumption
that the individual's mood, self-presentational demands, or
behavior determine product choice-i.e., that the consumer
chooses a constellation of material symbols that are con-
sistent with extant attitudes, moods, or behavior. Usually,
the product is viewed as the post hoc satisfaction of a need
(Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982). According to the present
perspective, however, the direction of the causal link between the consumer and the product is sometimes reversed.
While consumers often display products for impression
management, products may also be used for self-definition.
Appearance and Discourse
A fuller consideration of the role of products as socially
significant symbols and guides to behavior may help to
compensate for a bias in symbolic interactionism, which is
heavily weighted toward analysis of the semantic content
of interactions at the expense of nonverbal activity.8 One
theorist, Stone (1962), has maintained that every social
transaction must be broken down into at least two components-appearance and discourse (i.e., the "text" of the
interaction). Appearance is as important for the establishment and maintenance of self as is discourse; it contributes
to meaning via identification and validation of the participants. In a sense, then, appearance is more basic to an
interaction: it sets the stage for and delimits the possibilities
of discourse by defining the parameters of meaningful discussion.
Stone points out that the dimensions of self emphasized
by Mead, Cooley, and others are present in such material
objects as clothing. The wearer is cast as a social object
and arouses others' anticipation of behavior: "as the self
is dressed, it is simultaneously addressed" (Stone 1962, p.
''me" and role-appropriate attitudes or actions than does
verbal interaction, which can be more easily modulated. As
Thorstein Veblen wrote, "We may escape our discursive
obligations, but not our clothed appearances" (1899, p.
167).
PRODUCT SYMBOLISM
AND REFLEXIVE EVALUATION
The individual's self-concept is largely a result of others'
appraisals, both imagined and actual. It is essentially a pro-
jection of how one appears to others-seeing oneself as
others do. Evaluations of the person's roles are dependent
upon the appropriateness and quality of the symbols which
accompany that role, and many of these symbols are man-
made-i.e., products that have acquired learned symbolic
value:9
P3: The actor's reflexive evaluation of the meaning
assigned by others is influenced by the products
with which the self is surrounded. This (real or
imagined) appraisal by significant others is, in
turn, incorporated into self-definition.
To borrow Cooley's (1902) terminology, the "looking
glass self" requires the proper constellation of products to
deliver a satisfactory reflection. The actor's self-confidence
and interactions with others are based on the character of
this reflection. Reflexive feedback that one "looks the part"
elicits the set of learned behaviors corresponding to the
appropriate "me," thus generating a self-fulfilling prophecy as others pattern their behavior vis-'a-vis the enacted
role. The subsequent reinforcement from others validates
one's claim to occupy that role. As the learning process
progresses, the actor becomes less reliant upon external role
validation to perform adequately.
8Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), in their discussion contrasting the
"experiential view" with traditional information-processing models, note
9In fact, products themselves can serve as significant others, in the sense
that studies examining communication content generally involve consumer
that their use or display communicates societal expectations. Mead's
responses to semantic elements. Consistent with the present discussion,
(1934) concept of the "role model" has been applied primarily to actual
they advocate a greater focus on the effects of syntactic (structure and
persons, but he originally included inanimate objects in this category as
style) aspects of message content.
well (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981).
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
324
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CONSUMER
RESEARCH
Products with ascribed social meaning, then, may be
store patronage decisions are made as a result of direct and
used in a broad sense to facilitate role performance, in that
overt group pressure, much of the symbolic consumption
they increase the probability of portraying the behavior pat-
process may take place within the private experience of the
terns appropriate to that role:
actor. One need only observe someone preening in front of
P4: The probability of a successful role performance
is increased to the degree that the constellation of
material symbols surrounding the role player parallels the symbolism associated with that role.
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
OF PRODUCT SYMBOLISM
Since product symbolism is here regarded as a form of
communication regarding role expectations, it is important
to consider briefly both where these symbolic meanings
originate and the conditions that encourage their consumption.
Aside from a few isolated macro approaches (e.g., Nicosia and Mayer 1976), consumer research to date has been
skewed toward the psychological dynamics of symbolism.
For example, "motivation research" (Dichter 1964) was
based largely upon Freudian notions of symbolic need gratification, which require examination of the unique history
of the individual.
More recent approaches have espoused a sociological
perspective. Hirschman (1981) points out that to be operative, a symbol requires at least two parties-sender and
receiver. Thus she maintains that a minimum of a dyad is
required to study symbolic consumption and that in general,
a group is the appropriate level of analysis. Hirschman's
perspective on this issue is in agreement with the present
discussion. Certainly, symbols are generated and learned
at a relatively macro level. Indeed, one of the precepts of
symbolic interactionism is that society and its culture precede any individual actor.
This answer, however, may not be complete. On the one
hand, it seems clear that most material symbolism is produced at the societal and/or subcultural level. Cultural sym-
bols are generated and disseminated by "specialists" (e.g.,
a mirror or hear a child alone in animated conversation with
a menagerie of dolls to understand the often solitary nature
of symbolic consumption. Indeed, Hirschman and Hol-
brook (1982) note that the hedonic consumption process
can be driven by internal as well as by external cues; con-
sumers generate multisensory images within themselves
which are equally valid forms of experience (cf. Berlyne
1981; Singer and Antrobus 1972).
The physical presence of significant others is thus suficient but not necessary for reflexive evaluation. The feed-
back that gives symbols their meaning may be intrapersonal
at some times (examining the appearance of a new suit in
a mirror) and interpersonal at others (compliments on the
style or fit of the new suit). In either case, symbolic con-
sumption is likely to be a major component of reflexive
evaluation, which in turn affects the consumer's future
adoption and use of products.
PRODUCT-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIPS:
ROLE PERFORMANCE VERSUS
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
The current analysis holds that the causal linkage between products and behavior is potentially bidirectional. On
the one hand, a substantial literature attests to the pervasiveness of products as strategic or communication tools
(products as responses). On the other hand, products may
"set the stage" for role performances; behavior is matched
to the particular role by a set of products (products as stim-
uli). These alternatives are summarized in Figure B. A final
issue to be addressed concerns the specification of environmental demands that may trigger one or the other process.
Compensatory Symbolism
designers, copywriters, musicians); as products, they com-
It is proposed that products are likely to act as stimuli
prise a culture production system (Clignet 1979; Crane
1976), and such systems compete in the marketplace for
adoption by consumers (Hirschman and Solomon 1982).
when a discrepancy exists between the ideal set of behaviors
On the other hand, it is not equally clear that consumption
necessarily occurs at the societal or subcultural levels:
edge; its effect can be stated as follows:
P5: Product symbolism is generated at the societal
level but may be consumed at the level of indi-
vidual experience. Products are consumed both
for their social meaning (as symbols) and for their
private meaning (as signs).
Although symbolic interaction theory stresses the impor-
tance of a specific or generalized other, it is important to
note that reflexive evaluations are often the result of imagined or projected appraisal. Thus, the members of the
"dyad" who send and receive symbolic communication
may in fact be the same person. While some purchase or
associated with a given role and the individual's ability to
enact those behaviors. This ability is termed role knowl-
P6: The probability that product symbolism will exert
an a priori influence on behavior (by being
weighted heavily during reflexive evaluation) is
inversely proportional to the individual's degree
of extant role knowledge.
Thus, the determinant of a priori reliance upon product
cues is conceived of as a compensatory mechanism. If role
knowledge is high (i.e., if one has mastered the repertoire
of behaviors associated with successful role performance),
the need to determine one's place in the social system is
not aroused because the assignment of meaning already
exists. Under such conditions, the individual may well use
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRODUCTS
AS
SOCIAL
STIMULI
325
FIGURE B
A MODEL OF THE CONSUMER'S USE OF PRODUCTS FOR ROLE DEFINITION
Role Demands ]
____________________ Role Knowledge Yes Role Script
No
Product Symbolism: Reflexive Role Performance:
Products as Stimuli Evaluation Products as Response
[Role Placement]
[Role Validation _ _ _ l
products to communicate-rather than to establish-his or
cance of one's own possessions. A simple but pervasive
her social placement.
example is adolescent boys' use of such "macho"' products
On the other hand, many situations arise where the appropriate behavioral set is either unknown or known only
in an idealized sense-that is, role socialization is complete
fragile masculine self-concepts. Another example is the ten-
only at a stereotypic level, rather than through actual ex-
Lunt 1941)-i.e., the nouveau riche-to demonstrate their
as cars, clothing, and cologne to bolster developing and
dency of members of the "lower upper class" (Warner and
perience (rehearsal) of role behaviors. Here the individual
status through the overt display of homes, luxury cars, and
is at the stage of anticipatory role acquisition (Zaltman and
clothes. In contrast, the "upper upper class," which con-
Wallendorf 1979). When internal cues to behavior are lack-
sists primarily of "old money," avoids ostentatious pur-
ing (perhaps one has never played this part) one must rely
chases (Assael 1981).
on situational cues to determine appropriate actions and
The notion that lack of experience or ability in satisfying
"get into" the role. Such situational cues are the same ones
role expectations leads to heightened reliance on relevant
that observers use to determine the role an individual is
material symbols is similar to the logic of symbolic self-
playing. The role player who depends on external cues will
completion theory. Wicklund and Gollwitzer (1982) pro-
undergo reflexive evaluation; his/her self-image will be de-
pose that the failure to possess one symbolic indicator of
termined largely by a projection of how others see him/her.
an aspired-to self-definition leads to the compensatory dis-
Since people base many of their impressions on the pos-
play of other indicators. '0 For example, in a study of self-
sessions of the person being evaluated (i.e., products are
definition in the business world, Wicklund et al. (1981)
used to infer social class, occupation, life style, and so on),
the result of such reflexive evaluation should be signifi-
'0ln other respects, the two approaches diverge. Symbolic self-comple-
cantly affected by an evaluation of the symbolic signifi-
tion is based upon the tension system construct in Lewinian field theory.
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
326
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CONSUMER
RESEARCH
hypothesized that male MBA students with a lower chance
reliance on environmental cues may be amplified by the
of career success (as assessed by an index that included
state of evaluation apprehension that often accompanies the
factors such as gradepoint average, number of job inter-
need to enact appropriate behaviors in novel situations.
views, and number of job offers) would be more likely to
Moreover, the possibility of failure to match behavior to
display symbols of belonging to the business community.
situational requirements may have aversive consequences
The researchers indeed found a strong tendency in the pre-
for the actor (e.g., incompetence, frustration, or embar-
dicted direction; the more "incomplete" students were
rassment). While such situations could be identified in a
more likely to wear luxury watches and accessories and
piecemeal fashion, it is more fruitful to specify classes of
appropriate shoes, and were less likely to have long hair or
situations that are likely to be high in uncertainty and eval-
facial hair. In general, then, confidence in one's ability to
uation apprehension.
meet role demands may determine the degree to which one
must rely upon material symbols to convince others and
oneself of this ability.
Scripts
One area of research that may help to clarify the dual
functions of products as stimuli and responses is work on
"scripts," which Abelson (1976, p. 33) defines as "a coherent sequence of events expected by the individual, involving him either as a participant or an observer." Disparate research programs in this area possess a common
thread-namely, the idea that much social interaction is
governed by learned assumptions regarding the course the
interaction should take.
Much of this work is in cognitive and social psychology
and focuses on the existence of learned scripts; a central
task is to isolate the ways in which such scripts are inter-
Role Transition
One broad class of situations characterized by underlearned "scripts" may be termed role transition. More specifically, a person moves through stages in life that have
different role requirements and so demand new behavioral
responses (Hopson and Adams 1976). The function of the
socialization process is to educate the actor to behave appropriately in each new situation. Modern society is in a
constant state of flux, and its members frequently find themselves in novel role situations where a process of self-definition must be reinitiated (a first date, a job interview,
becoming a new parent, or even reentering the dating game
in middle age). Not surprisingly, periods of role transition
are often accompanied by the need to employ a variety of
products; the correct use of these products is a determinant
of success in completing the transition:"
nally represented in memory by "knowledge structures."
P8: Periods of role transition, which are often accom-
In fact, some event sequences are so well internalized that
panied by uncertainty and evaluation apprehension, render the novice role player especially reliant upon the use of relevant product cues to
guide role-appropriate behavior.
overt information processing may not be necessary to guide
behavior; these sequences may be viewed as habitual response chains. One researcher has gone so far as to label
this type of responding "mindless behavior" (Langer
1978). Like actors in a long-running play, people in familiar
situations often interact by rote, with little conscious attention at the time and even less recall of behavior later. A
"jolt back to reality" may be caused by close scrutiny, by
embarrassment, or perhaps by an encounter with a novel
situation.
The behavioral ramifications of scripts that are underlearned have not been so thoroughly considered. Here, the
individual possesses a hazy conception of the sequence of
events expected during a role performance. A theatrical
actor who is unfamiliar with a new part certainly relies
heavily upon the prompter; a shopper in an unfamiliar su-
permarket consults aisle labels more carefully than does a
regular customer. By analogy, a person who has yet to
internalize a script may rely heavily upon situational cues
(and hence on product symbolism) to orient behavior:
P7: Role demands characterized by script uncertainty
are accompanied by an increased reliance upon
(and hence consumption of) symbolic products as
a guide to behavior.
Thus, the a priori effects of product symbolism upon
behavior may be robust in situations where the individual
has yet to satisfactorily internalize script requirements. A
CONCLUSION
A theory of symbolic consumption must account for the
mechanism(s) by which the consumption of products is re-
lated to the rest of social behavior. This need echoes that
voiced by others for a focus on social stimuli in consumer
research (e.g., Schenk and Holman 1980). Given the cen-
tral role of consumption in everyday social life, the behavioral sciences also need to address the lack of a theory of
materialism-i.e., a theory that elucidates the relationship(s) between people and objects (Belk 1982; Csikszentmihalyi 1982).
The thrust of the present argument is that:
1. The symbolism embedded in many products is the
primary reason for their purchase and use.
2. Individuals are evaluated and placed in a social nexus
to a significant degree by the products which surround
them.
"This transition process is, incidentally, the lifeblood of many manufacturers, retailers, and marketers who supply the products required to
play social roles. For example, the formal wear industry dispenses some
of the props that facilitate the major role transformations symbolized by
proms, weddings, and funerals.
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRODUCTS
AS
SOCIAL
STIMULI
327
3. The reflexive evaluation construct implies that the
individual receives from the reflection of others' estimated
product symbolism which is instrumental in assigning
appraisals results in a decision as to whom he or she "is"
meaning to others is also used by individuals to assign
at that point. It is then that the individual can make conscious, minor adjustments to optimize the image quality
social identity to themselves.
4. The outcome of this self-definition process guides
behavior via the script that is evoked.
5. Symbolic consumption can exert an a priori effect on
role definition and interaction, especially in situations
communicated to others-that is, products can be used to
communicate role information after they have been used by
their owner to decide what role should be communicated.
Consumers Are People Too
where internalized behavioral responses are lacking.
Non-Human Variables Affect Human Behavior
Products function as social entities which, much like
If the focus of symbolic consumption is broadened to
consider the a priori impact of material symbolism on be-
havior, the role of products in general theories of social
behavior may be upgraded. In addition, marketers should
other (human) role models, act as guides to behavior. The
be made more aware of the significance of products as
process of consumption is thus integrally related to the pro-
determinants of behavior. An abundance of products and
cess of role-playing. This new emphasis seems warranted,
services-from clothing, automobiles, cosmetics, and fur-
especially given the robust impact of a variety of ecological
niture to restaurants, office environments, and airlines-are
variables on human interaction patterns. Various situational
rich in symbolic content. The nature of consumers' inter-
cues have been shown to affect consumer behavior (Belk
actions with these symbol systems may determine their at-
1974); the very layout of an office affects the tone of in-
titudes toward them and toward themselves. A further in-
teractions that occur within it (Amira and Abramowitz
tegration of products with social science constructs is a
1979). If interpersonal relations are affected by factors such
challenge for both social psychologists and consumer be-
as heat (Bell and Baron 1976), crowding (Griffitt and
havior researchers. It is hoped that the theoretical input of
Veitch 1971), and air pollution (Rotton et al. 1978), it
the former can be blended with the empirical contributions
seems likely that material goods, which are so central to
of the latter to balance and extend our knowledge of sym-
self-expression and communication, have at least as
bolic consumption. The result may be a blurring of the
much-if not more-impact. As one example, debates in
sometimes artificial distinction between consumer behavior
such fields as law enforcement (Tenzel, Storms, and Sweet-
and human behavior.
wood 1976) and health care (Brown and Goldstein 1968)
[Received December 1982. Revised May 1983.]
over the effects that uniforms versus civilian clothing have
on service delivery attest to the potential impact of clothing
symbolism upon role performance.
REFERENCES
The Fluidity of Self-Concept
Abelson, Robert P. (1976), "Script Processing in Attitude For-
mation and Decision Making," in Cognition and Social Behavior, eds. John S. Carroll and John S. Payne, Hillsdale,
Some past work has acknowledged that people employ
products to influence how they appear to others in a given
situation (e.g., Schenk and Holman 1980). While most
work on self-concept and brand choice assumes that the
consumer's actual and/or ideal self is static (e.g., Birdwell
1968; Dolich 1969), the present approach adopts a more
fluid perspective. This assumption appears to be consistent
with past psychological research on the self-concept (cf.
Wylie 1961). As was recently observed by Sirgy (1982),
this general approach has the advantage of acknowledging
that consumers have many self-concepts; brand consumption may be highly related to self-image in one situation
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Ac-
tion, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Amira, S. and S. I. Abramowitz (1979), "Therapeutic Attraction
as a Function of Therapist Attire and Office Furnishings,"
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1),
198-200.
Assael, Henry (1981), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action,
Boston: Kent Publishing.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), "Marketing as Exchange," Journal
of Marketing, 39 (October), 32-39.
(1979), "Toward a Formal Theory of Marketing Exchanges," in Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in
but not in another.
Marketing, Vol. 1, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 431-447.
Products Define the Self
Belk, Russell W. (1974), "An Exploratory Assessment of Situ-
The concept of reflexive evaluation poses the question:
When does the actor begin to believe in his or her own
script? Under some circumstances (e.g., role transition),
product symbolism may evoke a specific self-image. Behavior is then patterned to be consistent with the "me" that
is called forth. Cooley's (1902) looking glass self provides
a useful way of viewing this process. The feedback that the
ational Effects in Buyer Behavior," Journal of Marketing
Research, 11 (May), 156-163.
(1978), "Assessing the Effects of Visible Consumption
on Impression Formation," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 39-47.
(1980), "Effects of Consistency of Visible Consumption
Patterns on Impression Formation," in Advances in Con-
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
328 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
sumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 365-371.
(1982), "Acquisitiveness and Possessiveness: Criticisms
Brand," Harvard Business Review, 33 (March-April),
33-39.
Association, Washington, D.C.
Griffitt, William and Russell Veitch (1971), "Hot and Crowded:
Influence of Population Density and Temperature on Interpersonal Affective Behavior," Journal of Personality and
, Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982), "Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 4-17.
Grubb, Edward L. and Gregg Hupp (1968), "Perception of SelfGeneralized Stereotypes and Brand Selection," Journal of
and Issues," paper presented at the American Psychological
Bell, P. A. and Robert A. Baron (1974), "Aggression and Heat:
The Mediating Role of Negative Affect," Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 6, 18-30.
Bem, Daryl J. (1967), "Self-perception: An Alternative Interpre-
tation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena," Psychological
Social Psychology, 17(1), 92-98.
Marketing Research, 5 (February), 58-63.
Haire, Mason (1950), "Projective Techniques in Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing, 14 (April), 647-656.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980), "Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 283-295.
Review, 74(3), 183-200.
(1972), "Self-Perception Theory," in Advances in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New
York: Meredith.
Berscheid, Ellen and Elaine Walster (1969), Interpersonal At-
traction, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of
Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Birdwell, Al E. (1968), "A Study of the Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice," Journal of Business, 41 (January), 76-88.
Blumer, Herbert (1962), "Society as Symbolic Interaction" in
Human Behavior and Social Processes, ed. Arnold M. Rose,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and
Method, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boyd, Harper W., Jr., and Sidney J. Levy (1963), "New Dimension in Consumer Analysis," Harvard Business Review,
41 (November-December), 129-140.
Brown, Julia S. and Lester S. Goldstein (1968), "Nurse-Patient
Interaction Before and After the Substitution of Street Clothes
for Uniforms," International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
14(1), 32-43.
Buss, Arnold H. (1980), Self-Consciousness and Social Anxiety,
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Clignet, Rene (1979), "The Variability of Paradigms in the Production of Culture," American Sociological Review, 44
(June), 392-409.
Cooley, Charles Horton (1902), Human Nature and the Social
Order, New York: Charles Scribner's.
Crane, Diane (1976), "Reward Systems in Art, Science and Religion," in The Production of Cultutre, ed., R. A. Peterson,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 57-72.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1982), "The Symbolic Functions of
Possessions: Towards a Psychology of Materialism," paper
presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaning of
Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Dichter, Ernest (1964), Handbook of Consumer Motivations, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), "Congruence Relationships Between SelfImages and Product Brands," Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 80-85.
Dornoff, Ronald J. and Ronald L. Tatham (1972), "Congruence
Between Personal Image and Store Image," Journal of the
Market Research Society, 14(1), 45-52.
Duval, Shelley and Richard A. Wicklund (1972), A Theory of
Objective Self-Awareness, New York: Academic Press.
Gardner, B. B. and Sidney J. Levy (1955), "The Product and the
(1981), "Comprehending Symbolic Consumption: Three
Theoretical Issues," in Symbolic Consumer Behavior, eds.
Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Ann Arbor
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 4-6.
and Morris B. Holbrook (1981), Symbolic Consumer Behavior, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
and Morris B. Holbrook (1982), "Hedonic Consumption:
Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Propositions," Journal
of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 92-101.
and Michael R. Solomon (1982), "Competition and Co-
operation Among Culture Production Systems," in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives, eds. Ronald
F. Bush and Shelby D. Hunt, Chicago: American Marketing
Assocation.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Neville C. Hughes (1978), "Product
Images: How Structured Rating Scales Facilitate Using a Projective Technique in Hypothesis Testing," The Journal of
Psychology, 100, 323-328.
and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), "The Experiential
Aspects of Consumer Behavior: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140.
Holman, Rebecca H. (1980), "Clothing as Communication: An
Empirical Investigation," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed., Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 372-377.
(1981 a), "Apparel as Communication," in Symbolic Consumer Behavior, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B.
Holbrook, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 7-15.
(1981b), "Product Use as Communication: A Fresh Appraisal of a Venerable Topic" in Review of Marketing, eds.
Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roering, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 250-272.
Hopson, B. and A. Adams (1976), "Toward an Understanding
of Transition: Defining Some Boundaries of Transition Dynamics," in Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Changes, eds. J. Adams, J. Hayes and B. Hopson,
London: Martin Robertson.
James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology, New York:
Henry Holt.
Kinch, John W. (1967), "A Formalized Theory of Self-Concept,"
in Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, eds.
J. G. Manis and G. N. Meltzer, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kotler, Philip (1972), "A Generic Concept of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 46-54.
(1976), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and
Control, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Landon, E. Laird, Jr. (1974), "Self-Concept, Ideal Self-Concept,
and Consumer Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer
Research, 1 (September), 44-51.
Langer, Ellen (1978), "Rethinking the Role of Thought in Social
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRODUCTS
AS
SOCIAL
Interaction, " in New Directions in Attribution Research, eds.
John Harvey, William Ickes, and Robert Kidd, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laver, R. and H. Handel (1979), Social Psychology: The Theory
and Application of Symbolic Interactionism, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
STIMULI
329
Lindzey and Eliot Aronson, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schenk, Carolyn Turner and Rebecca H. Holman (1980), "A
Sociological Approach to Brand Choice: The Concept of Situational Self Image," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 610-614.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Business
Review, 37 (July-August), 117-124.
(1964), "Symbolism and Life Style," in Toward Scientific Marketing, ed. Stephen A. Greyser, Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
(1980), "The Symbolic Analysis of Companies, Brands,
and Customer," Twelfth Annual Albert Wesley Frey Lecture, University of Pittsburgh, PA, April.
(1981), "Interpreting Consumer Mythology: A Structural
Approach to Consumer Behavior," Journal of Marketing, 45
(Summer), 49-61.
and John A. Czepiel (1975), "Marketing and Aesthetics,"
Proceedings, Educators' Conference, Series No. 36, American Marketing Association, 386-391.
, John A. Czepiel, and Dennis W. Rook (1980), "Social
Division and Aesthetic Specialization: The Middle Class and
Musical Events," in Symbolic Consumer Behavior, eds.
Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 38-44.
Mason, Joseph Barry and Morris L. Mayer (1970), "The Problem
Shrauger, J. Sidney and Thomas J. Schoeneman (1979), "Sym-
bolic Interactionist View of Self-Concept: Through the Looking Glass Darkly," Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 549-573.
Singer, Jerome L. and J. S. Antrobus (1972), "Dimensions of
Daydreaming: A Factor Analysis of Imaginal Process and
Personality Scales," in The Function and Nature of Imagery,
ed. P. Sheehan, New York: Academic Press.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior:
A Critical Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 287-300.
Snyder, Mark (1974), "The Self-Monitoring of Expressive Be-
havior," Journal of Personiality and Social Psychology, 30
(4), 526-537.
Solomon, Michael R. and John Schopler (1982), "Self-Consciousness and Clothing," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508-514.
Stone, Gregory P. (1962), "Appearance and, the Self, "' in Human
Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach,
ed. Arnold M. Rose, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 86-118.
Stryker, Sheldon (1968), "Identity Salience and Role Perfor-
of the Self-Concept in Store Image Studies," Journal of
mance," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30 (Novem-
Marketing, 34 (Summer), 67-69.
ber), 558-564.
McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons (1978), Identities and Interactions, New York: The Free Press.
McCarthy, E. Jerome (1981), Basic Marketing. A Managerial
Approach, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Mead, George H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Merton, Robert K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure,
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Munson, J. Michael and W. Austin Spivey (1980), "Assessing
Self-Concept," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7,
ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 598-603.
Nicosia, Francesco M. and Robert N. Mayer (1976), "Toward a
Sociology of Consumption, " Journal of Consumer Research,
3 (September), 65-75.
Peirce, Charles S. (1931-1935), The Collected Works of Charles
Sanders Peirce, Vol. 1-6, eds. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quarantelli, E. L. and Joseph Cooper (1966), "Self-Conceptions
and Others: A Further Test of Meadian Hypotheses," The
Sociological Quarterly, 7(3), 281-297.
Rook, Dennis W. and Sidney J. Levy (1983), "Psychosocial
Themes in Consumer Grooming Rituals," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and
Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 329-333.
Rose, Arnold M., ed. (1962), Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B. and Timothy G. Plax (1977), "Clothing
as Communication," Journal of Communication, 27
(Spring), 24-31.
Rotton, James, Timothy Barry, James Frey, and Edoardo Soler
(1978), "Air Pollution and Interpersonal Attraction," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(1), 57-71.
Sarbin, Theodore R. and Vernon L. Allen (1968), "Role Theory," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Gardner
Tenzel, James H., Lowell Storms, and Hervey Sweetwood
(1976), "Symbols and Behavior: An Experiment in Altering
the Police Role," Journal of Police Science and Administration, 4(1), 21-27.
Turner, Carolyn (1980), "The Symbolic Interactionist's Concept
of Situational Self-Image and Its Importance in Brand Choice
Behavior," unpublished Masters thesis, Graduate School of
Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802.
Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, New
York: Macmillan.
Wallendorf, Melanie (1979), "Role Accumulation and the Diffusion of Innovations," doctoral dissertation, Graduate
School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt (1941), The Social Life of
a Modern Community, Yankee City Series, Vol. 1, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Weitz, Barton A. (1978), "The Relationship Between Salesperson
Performance and Understanding of Customer Decision Making," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November),
501-516.
Wicklund, Robert A. and Peter M. Gollwitzer (1982), Symbolic
Self Completion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- P. M. Gollwitzer, C. Castelain, P. Korzekwa, and V.
Blasko (1981), "Various Forms of Self-Symbolizing in Ideological, Occupational, and Domestic Self-Definitions," unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
Woodside, Arch G., William 0. Bearden, and Ilkka Ronkainen
(1977), "Images on Serving Marijuana, Alcoholic Beverages, and Soft Drinks," The Journal of Psychology, 96(1),
11-14.
Wylie, Ruth C. (1961), The Self-Concept: A Critical Survey of
Pertinent Research Literature, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Zaltman, Gerald and Melanie Wallendorf (1979), Consumer Be-
havior: Basic Findings and Management Implications, New
York: John Wiley.
This content downloaded from 143.107.92.4 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms